Arguments for unethical equivalency has caused some strange arguments to arise and be accepted as satisfactory. To be plainer, it seems that Conservatives worship Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien. They talk tenfold about his legacy being inspirational to them than any Progressive Conservative Prime Minister or even foreign leaders like Thatcher or Reagan as inspirational to their choices. They see Jean Chretien as setting the peak bar for them as to what they would like to live up to. They condemn him one second and cite him as their inspiration for their process for the next ten things they announce. They say it is normal and that they are just copying their enemies of old, Chretien still haunts them obviously, in the exact form, implementation and process that, while in opposition, they stood against. They are saying: “Hypocrisy? What hypocrisy? We said one thing, then did that exact thing. That’s not hypocrisy. Its damn near clever if you ask me!”
After the sponsorship scandal, every Liberal took his fair share of blame in the unethical proceedings. The focus on accountability resulted in an internal Liberal witch-hunt to root out problems, self-diagnose and drive out the disease… Conservatives never saw it as enough. The Conservatives promised a fresh and open process of government that Liberals could never act on or believe in truly.
Now, it is plain to see that there is no interest in enacting such a promise into reality. The most secretive government in Canadian history springs from a contrary promise. Yet, hypocrisy does not abound. This government has so few aspirations that voters must realize, “I may have voted for a non-inspired party. They have no goals to reform anything despite their previous name. They liked the way it was done when they spoke against it. It was more jealousy than anything.”
“I cannot say with certitude” (hehe if you get that) where I pulled this gold nugget from, but I thought I would share it:
“Also, on a somewhat unrelated note, every conservative who likes to say ‘Chretien did it too’ in defence of the Prime Minister should think about the fact that they now seem to regard Jean Chretien as the standard for integrity in government.”
And I thought this was brilliant. You hear this so often now from Conservative supporters, pundits, CPC talking heads and journalists of all directions that there now is a Prime Ministerial and Government code of ethics that has been compiled after the 143 years we have been a federated state. Instead of sifting through the actions of these governance bodies, the writer decided to stick every copy of Hansard (the transcript of speaking in the HoC) since 1867 into one omnipresent ‘correct’ and ‘normal’ guide to being a government in the future. This implies: nothing being omitted, nothing taken out and nothing off limits. Basically, if it was previously done, it can be done again without varying scrutiny, varying consequences or any sense of judgment put on the action. Whether it is clearly wrong or not, it has been done before and, like a child, they must be allowed to do it too.
The first government taken down in an election, using the magnifying lens of the media to make something wrong turn into an egregious assault on Canadian ethics, was the Martin government due to the sponsorship scandal (SS). It is still indecipherable whether anyone that Martin tossed out from the Chretien years was involved or it left a bigger stain on either administration worse or left a shared stain on the whole Liberal era due to it.
Back to the quote: The Liberal Party admitted systemic issues after the scandal. It lost us three elections and gives us deep internal shame as members. It’s done. However, the Conservatives condemned it to win them their first election. They condemn it in the house often and like to say ‘when are they going to pay Canadians back?’ It is more than partisan, opportunistic, hypocritical and truly condemnable, it is generally nonsensical that Conservatives seem to worship someone’s actions who, in the next breath, they condemn for existing. The standard for integrity and fortitude for them: Stephen Harper. Why? Because he did many things that Chretien did or might have considered doing to keep control. No adjective or description aptly follows this to accentuate the pure absurdity of the integrity measurements for Conservatives nowadays. They just “are”.
Arguments for historical citing, as justification for current unethical action, are a plague. The most welcome plague that the Conservatives have ever seen. Copy, copy, say they copied (even though its brutally out of context and non-factual) and hold up a low bar for ethics in Ottawa, then things will never change, including voter apathy and hopefully including their inexplicably high vote count.
Welcome to the Conservative mind. Never surpass the problems of before because that’ll help move things forward and Conservative is exactly contrary to that very notion. We want to retain all the corruption, poverty, inequity, patronage, pork-barreled spending and unethical maneuver that our predecessors were able to use. Regression or, at least, stagnancy! I pray you are allowed to evacuate this worldview shortly.
One must remember:
With a cult of leadership, to put it in the most blunt of terms, with a political organization, there are twofold things that go with this.
On the one hand, there is a sense of emphasis on the central figure’s personality and how it serves as a microcosm for the society he/she is charged with serving. There is a centrality of focus in government, particularly for the Liberal Party, this expounded with the centrality of the central figure, there comes a perversely romanticized notion of a ‘democratically elected dictator’. This being where their word has high value in shaping the events following. This has become the archetype that all parties follow now, whether consciously lying about it or acting subconsciously the same process that they, in the next breath, condemn about the past.
On the other hand, it attracts the best, brightest and most idealistic to the party’s mold and values in order to project them into a platform where they may best propel their vision into reality. The attraction of good candidates to the Liberal brand cannot be mirrored in other parties in the same way. This is because the Liberal brand has: that cult of leadership, a value in its history and a value in how its history intertwines so closely with the national history. This image fostered by those party elders, elites and (to be blunt) patriarchs whom vet candidates and shape the party’s direction until the day they die. This is as Trudeau did until 1995 (social progressivism and national unity), as Chretien will until he passes on (financial responsibility) and as other important party establishment figures will, even as they move into private realms of influence and business. The backroom men and women running the old machine continue to represent the values of the Liberal party that ran current with the fabric of Canadian society known internationally. Thus, the new party uppers and members seek to honour, due to perceived reverence, the glorious past that the party has. There are still jokes of small countries in South Asia that assume Trudeau or Chretien are still Prime Minister. For their sake, I hope they eternally believe that this remains so.
When looking through the first lens (of cynicism), one sees that power-hungry politicians will use the Liberal vehicle to project themselves into swanky, pocket-filling, lazy and cozy digs in a corner office where they may do the bare minimum and reap the benefits. Or the even more insane self-taught political scientists or pundits will comment on how the opportunists will use the mechanisms to propel themselves to the top and then turn around on all the things they espoused to impose their extremist vision onto Canada contrary to the Liberal values or Liberal Canada.
To these alarmists I say: “you far too much underestimate the power of our noble, virtuous, old, and living-for-no-material-benefit-but-rather-living-to-leave-something-worthy-after-they-“leave” elder elites. These people’s vetting process is brutal. These peoples’ gaze sees into the person’s soul and can spot a visionless, spineless, moral-less, non-Liberal Liberal candidate in a millisecond. They would never let them get past “candidate”. Likely placing them in a riding that is seen as a “lost riding” before the campaign. They do not get party support. They do not get the value of empirical party wisdom. Simply, one will get nowhere without being a genuine person of talent. This party, if nothing else, knows how to attract genuine talent. This party and its members have an internal sense that picks out people of ineffable worthiness. This much is clear by the legends of the leaders of the party. There is a reason that, up until the last 2 campaigns, every full-time Liberal Leader whom ran in a general election became Prime Minister during their lifetime.
The talent pool of Canadians is magnetized towards the Liberal Party. Contrastingly, the business elites, the regressive patriarchs and the dyed-in-the-wool Conservatives are attracted to things that benefit ‘them’, people they know and their regional community (I would dare to say, ‘or so they perceive’). This is natural, but pocketed and reflects their penchant for narrow-subjectivity that keeps them ‘safe’. The NDP is just packed with Liberals who don’t like the colour red, union bosses whom like having a special place at the table and right now packed with separatists coming through a new avenue for a surprise attack. The fact is, the only party that brings unions and businesses together: Liberal Party. Only party that brings right and left wing together to solutions through internal, fair, team-oriented dialogue: Liberal Party. Only party in Canada willing to stand up for national unity, while respecting Quebec’s (dare I say) ‘distinct’ place in the federation: Liberal Party. The only party with something not ‘different’ to offer, but rather offers a package deal of non-ideological solutions presented by: i) quality people ii) people with vision for the country and for every citizen who resides there.
The power-hungry idiots are weeded out by those who have passed the test , proven their worth to their country in a variety of fields resulting in a true talent pool. The elites take care of the weak. Only those who value an active, strong and compassionate federal government in Ottawa willing to work for every province to work for prosperity and equality (without seeing those as contradictory, but rather one as a catalyst for the other) survive. The Liberal establishment needs to rebuild the machine, but the brand is still there. The brand, like that of a good company, is key. Now, the LPC can only retains the ones who truly value what they value and see that diversity and diversity of opinion are a benefit. Every other party than the Liberal party see internal democracy of idea as a nuisance or a plague to split it apart, their party while the Liberal party has always had internal debates play out on the national stage making it a truly “national” Party. The Liberal brand remains, despite a shrinking of the staffer count. It limits words said in the house (HoC), not the resolve to serve Canadians.
I hope you have found this different angle on leadership’s role in rebuilding, on the party brand and the party’s value in the nation it serves rather than valuing one constituency within the country less than another.
If I was comms - I would say: Liberals listen. Cons corrupt. NDP just Need Dumping Promptly (by Quebec).
The Liberal party. The true party of trueness and truthiness all at once. Boom.
An idealist, a man who proudly bleeds red and a Canadian (not just a Tim Hortonian).
Why thank you. :)
What a fellow you are John Stanley… Michael Fassbender is a superb actor. On the other hand, you sir are extremely transparent. All people must make their way up in the world eventually if they want to share their passion, talents and message with a wider base of people. One cannot remain indie forever.
If a man has a very decided character, has a strongly accentuated career, it is normally the case of course that makes ardent friends and bitter enemies.
(In modern terms, for those under 25 - “Haters gonna hate”)” —Theodore Roosevelt (TR)
I rented out my face as advertising space for the month and received no salary, I shant be making that mistake again. Haha.
“X-Men: First Class” is one of the most superb superhero movies that I have ever viewed. Further, it expanded beyond that and impressed me as a standalone concept film of skillful, fictional, revisionist history.
The choice in actors for James McAvoy (Charles Xavier) and Michael Fassbender (Erik Lehnsherr) for the roles was perfect. I enjoyed their interplay, their connection and the development into their future selves being tactfully laid out.
More often than not, a prequel made as an origin story of a trilogy movie set turns out to mediocre, cheesy and occasionally ruins the fluidity of moving forward into the movies that came before it. This happens by doing something contradictory, nonsensical or too technologically advanced to regress into what it became later e.g. Star Wars prequels.
It invoked imagery, a set of lessons (ones more or less forgotten), brought you into a historical mold fluidly and topped it off with a superhero movie. It brought back the omen of the Nazis and their influence onto a survivor of such things in Magneto’s early life. It brought back the omen of the Cold War and the specter of total annihilation only held together by a rocky mutual recognition that mutual destruction was the only other option. It brought back the hair, the dancing, the vocabulary, the technology level and the atmosphere of the globe. This genuinely, in my view, will give children, who have no comprehension or adequate way of harnessing the feelings associated with the early 60s time period, a better under understanding.
I was ecstatic to see they incorporated racial issues, female issues, diversity issues and they tackled many things along with making a movie to focus on the origins of “The X-Men”. They were ambitious and do a successful job. For that, I shall grant them every leniency against nitpickers who have no appreciation for quality storytelling.
It further showed a side of Professor X that we were longing to see… his ‘game’ (for lack of a better term) when approaching women. He was approachable, relatable and made every moment worthwhile. James McAvoy, despite the multitude of balding jokes and a much higher voice register than Patrick Stewart, did such a phenomenal job.
It brought back a movie that centralized on phrases, themes and a beautifully woven web of a plot that culminated in a great lead into the X-men series. After a cynical experience with post-triology prequels in the past, I am happy to report that this one did not disappoint and almost set a new archetype for how one must please fans of the trilogy first and worry about the new viewers later. What am I talking about? This is X-men… If you’re new to X-men, you’re new to life!
“Congratulations on your successful birthing process and congratulations on learning to read before even hitting elementary school - quite a feat my small child reader.”
This is a movie I strongly recommend. It calls on all comic book geeks to go, because it features Nightcrawler’s father, Mystique (speaking), Beast (!), Darwin (you’ll see for yourself), Banshee, Scott Summers’ (Cyclops) older brother Alex Summers (Havok) and many more interesting Mutants. For people who saw X-men 1, 2, and 3 and wanted to return to the trend that 1 + 2 were on… jump back on the train, X-Men is again worth watching. For historical enthusiasts of all sorts, this movie centers on the Cuban Missile Crisis and suggests a very stark lesson for humanity about hypocrisy of enemy choice as well as the senselessness of the Cold War itself. For those, like myself, who read X-Men novels as a child, it focuses on Sebastien Shaw, Emma Frost and the reoccurring setting of “The Hellfire Club”. I read about Shaw first in “The Legacy Quest” trilogy by Steve Lyons, which are still truly intriguingly conceptualized novels.
In conclusion, it was a fantastic film.
Overall: X-Men: First Class – 9/10. Superb.